post_pr_review_comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. Only states posting action and language requirement. Lacks details on effects, authentication, rate limits, error handling, or whether comment is immediately visible beyond status parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, concise, front-loaded with action then constraint. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 7 required params and no annotations or output schema, description should cover more context like input expectations, response behavior, and usage restrictions. Currently only covers basic action and language constraint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 57%. Description adds no parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing body language. Owner, repo, pull_number are standard but undocumented. Description does not compensate for missing param descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states verb 'posts' and resource 'code review comment on a specific line of a file changed in the PR'. Distinct from sibling tool get_pull_request_diff which retrieves diffs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies use when wanting to post a comment, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternative (get_pull_request_diff) or prerequisites. Mentions language constraint but not tool selection context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.